HINDUPUR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT v. BLOCK, BEL LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In that view, this Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
1. A.V.KRUPASHANKAR RAO, A.V.KRUPASHANKAR RAO, S/O A.N.VITTAL RAO, AGE. 68 YRS, RJOD.NO. 3-3-87, MUKKADIPET, HINDUPUR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS -PRL. SECRETARIAT, SECRETARY, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. HOME DEPARTMENT,
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, I - TOWN POLICE STATION, HINDUPUR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.
4. J SHANKARAIAH, S/O UCHAPPA, AGE. 44 YRS, R/O D.NO.26-4- 1941, MARUTHI NAGAR, MELAPURAM, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
5. SHAIK KARIMULLA, S/O MUZAMMIL, AGE. 44 YRS, R/O 5TH BLOCK, BEL LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENT(S)
: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in interfering with my civil disputes pending between the petitioner and 4 and 5 respondents and forcibly obtaining signatures as illegal, arbitrary, unauthorized, violative of statutory duties and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. VASAVI RATNA KUMARI DANDAMUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME 2. INENI VENKATA PRASAD 2 The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Operative part
This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed, by the Petitioner for the following relief:
... to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in interfering with the civil disputes pending between the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 and forcibly obtaining signatures as illegal, arbitrary, unauthorized, violative of statutory duties and to pass such ...
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing for respondent State. Perused the material on record. Learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions would submit that in the light of the interim order passed by this Court on 06.09.2022 in IA No.1 of 2022, respondent Police are not interfering in the civil disputes between the parties and requested to dispose of the Writ Petition by passing appropriate orders. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that recording the said submission, this Writ Petition may be disposed of by passing appropriate orders. In that view, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Interim order passed by this Court on 06.09.2022 in IA No.1 of 2022 is made absolute. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 07.01.2026 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 28434 of 2022
07.01.2026 Mjl /*
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In that view, this Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 07 Jan 2026. The bench was VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.